Response to "Comment on the Process Definition of Creativity".
Saved in:
| Title: | Response to "Comment on the Process Definition of Creativity". |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Green, Adam E. (AUTHOR), Beaty, Roger E. (AUTHOR), Kenett, Yoed N. (AUTHOR), Kaufman, James C. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Creativity Research Journal. Apr-Jun2026, Vol. 38 Issue 2, p474-478. 5p. |
| Subjects: | Distinction (Philosophy), Creative ability |
| Abstract: | The article focuses on clarifying and defending the Process Definition of Creativity (TPD) in response to criticisms by Dr. Weisberg. It emphasizes that TPD distinguishes creativity as a process from creativity as a product, arguing that process definitions apply solely to creative processes and not to products, which require separate product definitions. The authors address concerns about the role of internally versus externally directed attention in creativity, the handling of accidental creativity, and comparisons with alternative definitions such as Weisberg’s IN definition, highlighting that conflating process and product definitions leads to conceptual confusion. The discussion aims to promote ontological clarity in creativity research by maintaining a clear separation between creativity as a process and as an attribute of products. [Extracted from the article] |
| Copyright of Creativity Research Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The article focuses on clarifying and defending the Process Definition of Creativity (TPD) in response to criticisms by Dr. Weisberg. It emphasizes that TPD distinguishes creativity as a process from creativity as a product, arguing that process definitions apply solely to creative processes and not to products, which require separate product definitions. The authors address concerns about the role of internally versus externally directed attention in creativity, the handling of accidental creativity, and comparisons with alternative definitions such as Weisberg’s IN definition, highlighting that conflating process and product definitions leads to conceptual confusion. The discussion aims to promote ontological clarity in creativity research by maintaining a clear separation between creativity as a process and as an attribute of products. [Extracted from the article] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10400419 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10400419.2025.2461824 |
